I won't let lawyers tear down Arizona water protections without a fight
Some things are fundamental to our success and way of life in the Arizona desert.
Having a reliable water supply ranks first among them.
The governor designated me to defend Arizona residents' right to enjoy an assured water supply lasting at least 100 years, and I am more firmly committed to that promise today than ever before.
Under my watch, no homeowner in an Active Management Area should ever feel concerns for future water supplies, even in an age of chronic drought and climate change. Today's challenges are precisely those that Arizona's landmark 1980 Groundwater Management Act was designed to confront.
What is concerning, on the other hand, are recent efforts to undermine our state's invaluable consumer protections that guarantee a reliable water supply amid the backdrop of booming growth in the Phoenix metro area.
On behalf of a powerful group of irresponsible development interests, the Phoenix-based Goldwater Institute recently filed a lawsuit against the Arizona Department of Water Resources, predictably alleging a litany of vague complaints about 'bureaucratic overreach' and 'arbitrary' choices related to how the department calculates the availability of water underground.
ADWR is accused of acting aggressively in defense of Arizona homeowners who accepted the state's most sacred pact with its homebuying residents: That if you buy a new home in a region protected by Arizona's Assured Water Supply Program, you can count on an assured water supply.
That is the commitment that a bipartisan majority of Arizona lawmakers made in 1980 with the Arizona Groundwater Management Act — a political act of courage and commitment that has stood the test of time now for 45 years.
For decades, Arizona has been heralded for having demonstrated the rare governmental foresight to protect its homebuyers — and, in turn, its economic future — by standing on a unique legal principle:
That a homeowner in an area stamped with an assured water supply seal of approval need never lose a night's sleep worrying that some vast, new development tapping into the same water supply might someday leave the homeowner with a kitchen faucet spewing dust.
'For me, that was the most historic thing that I had anything to do with,' the late Republican state Senate President Stan Turley recalled for the Arizona Memory Project.
It was a complex piece of legislation, to be sure, running more than 100 pages. It created Active Management Areas and mandated groundwater-use reporting requirements in AMAs for major agricultural and commercial users, among others.
But also fundamental to the act were those consumer protections designed to assure that the state's groundwater would not be depleted by excessive pumping.
Written into the 1980 act — as well as into subsequent legislation — was language authorizing specific steps the department could take to protect groundwater supplies and the homeowners who were already tapped into them.
A term of art long used to describe these groundwater protections is 'unmet demand.'
Unmet demand occurs when the Assured Water Supply Program forecasts the potential for water users' groundwater wells to dry up, and thus their demand — their future need for groundwater — is 'unmet.'
This concept is what the Goldwater lawsuit rails against: the state's efforts to protect existing homeowners and communities from having their wells go dry because of new developments.
Amazingly, the Goldwater Institute has opted to characterize the unmet demand concept as something new and 'flawed.'
Claims that this is a 'new' policy established in 2023 are patently false.
Discussions related to the Assured Water Supply Program and groundwater constraints date back at least to 2017, when Gov. Doug Ducey's then chief of staff hosted meetings on this exact topic, attended by the very same stakeholders who are suing over what they describe as a 'new' policy.
What is at stake in this lawsuit is the ability of the state to protect the Arizonans that are here today, by ensuring that their water supplies don't run out or water levels fall to alarming depths of 1,000 feet due to new groundwater pumping.
Opinion: It's time to reform the groundwater law I helped pass
The Goldwater lawsuit would create a policy directive to rubberstamp new developments if water was available beneath them, while forcing ADWR to ignore any potential impacts to neighboring homeowners or communities.
Such a position violates the very spirit of our water laws that are designed to protect the residents and communities who are here today.
There have been claims leveled recently that ADWR is anti-growth. These claims are false, as well.
The department is every bit as committed today to helping builders find alternative water supplies as it was in 2017 under Governor Ducey when modeling found similar conditions in the Pinal Active Management Area.
In November 2023, the department — along with the Governor's Water Policy Council — proposed alternatives to the Assured Water Supply Program that would allow new development to make use of grandfathered groundwater rights as a sort of bridge to a permanent, renewable supply of water.
Those innovative alternatives would allow home construction to include groundwater that previously could not be included in an assured water supply determination.
Vitally, it would do it in a way that allows water providers to firm up the groundwater supplies for existing users while allowing for new growth.
To this day, ADWR continues to process and issue assured water supply determinations where conditions allow. It has led the way in streamlining regulations and creating flexibility for communities to continue building their robust economies.
The department has enthusiastically supported market-based reforms, such as permitting the movement of water supplies from legislatively approved groundwater basins.
It has helped to provide greater flexibility for Arizona's Native American tribes to market their supplies, and it is currently developing a voluntary conservation incentive program that will make it easier for farmers to develop their lands into housing and other urban uses — while saving water at the same time.
Growth is essential to the state's economy, and it is accelerated by the guarantee of a reliable water supply.
When families and businesses make the decision to relocate and invest in Arizona, they should be able to do so with the assurance that they will have water security long into the future.
The department has a legal obligation to protect the water supplies of Arizonans who are here today when new developments are considered, and we will stand by that obligation.
Arizona has had a 100-year water assurance promise that has stood up for 45 years. The department is not about to allow Goldwater's lawyers — or anyone else — to tear it down without a fight.
Tom Buschatzke has served as director of the Arizona Department of Water Resources for more than 10 years. On X, formerly Twitter, @azwater.
This article originally appeared on Arizona Republic: Arizona water law protects homeowners. We can't erode that | Opinion
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Los Angeles Times
34 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Judge: Trump administration can dismantle Institute of Museum and Library Services
WASHINGTON — A federal judge on Friday denied a request by the American Library Assn. to halt the Trump administration's further dismantling of an agency that funds and promotes libraries across the country, saying that recent court decisions suggested his court lacked jurisdiction to hear the matter. U.S. District Judge Richard Leon had previously agreed to temporarily block the Republican administration, saying that plaintiffs were likely to show that Trump doesn't have the legal authority to unilaterally shutter the Institute of Museum and Library Services, which was created by Congress. But in Friday's ruling, Leon wrote that as much as the 'Court laments the Executive Branch's efforts to cut off this lifeline for libraries and museums,' recent court decisions suggested that the case should be heard in a separate court dedicated to contractual claims. He cited the Supreme Court's decision allowing the administration to cut hundreds of millions of dollars in teacher-training money despite a lower court order barring the cuts, saying that cases seeking reinstatement of federal grants should be heard in the Court of Federal Claims. The American Library Assn. and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees filed a lawsuit to stop the administration from gutting the institute after President Trump signed a March 14 executive order that refers to it and several other federal agencies as 'unnecessary.' The agency's appointed acting director then placed many staff members on administrative leave, sent termination notices to most of them, began canceling grants and contracts and fired all members of the National Museum and Library Services Board. The institute has roughly 75 employees and issued more than $266 million in grants last year. However, a Rhode Island judge's order prohibiting the government from shutting down the institute in a separate case brought by several states remains in place. The administration is appealing that order as well.
New York Post
35 minutes ago
- New York Post
Trump says Elon Musk will face ‘very serious consequences' if he funds Dems in future elections
WASHINGTON — President Trump warned Saturday that his former ally Elon Musk will face 'very serious consequences' if he starts bankrolling Democratic candidates for office after their nasty public split over a Republican spending bill working its way through Congress. 'If he does, he'll have to pay the consequences for that,' Trump told NBC News' Kristin Welker in an interview. 'He'll have to pay very serious consequences if he does that,' the president added. Advertisement 3 Musk and Trump have been feuding after the Tesla CEO spoke out on the president's 'big beautiful' bill. AP 'Is there anything else you just want people to know about the status,' Welker asked. 'No, not at all. We're doing great,' Trump replied. 'The bill is great. It looks like we're going to get it passed. Looks strongly like we're going to get it passed.' Advertisement 3 Musk was part of cabinet meetings during the first few months of Trump's second term. Molly Riley/White House / SWNS Musk knocked Trump during a multi-day X tirade over the debt increases contained in the 'big beautiful bill' earlier this week and said without his hundreds of millions of dollars in contributions, the president would never have been re-elected in 2024. Here is the latest on Donald Trump and Elon Musk's feud He also claimed credit for delivering the GOP a 53-47 majority in the Senate — and holding onto its majority in the House. Advertisement 3 Trump has hit back at Musk's comments in the ongoing feud. The Tesla and SpaceX billionaire contributed more than a quarter of a billion dollars to Republican candidates in the 2024 cycle, federal campaign filings show.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Help us settle a debate: What do you call the middle lane on the Sevens?
Phoenix leaders recently commissioned a study to examine commuting patterns on Seventh Avenue and Seventh Street where reversible lanes are used in rush hour. City traffic engineers also will look at the effects of those lanes on the major arterials within a mile and a half to the east and west of them. The City Council's decision last month came as a citizen petition that garnered 4,000 signatures demanded the removal of the reverse lanes along the two heavily trafficked corridors, commonly referred to as the Sevens. For years, people have raised safety concerns with Phoenix's reverse lanes, which have been used for nearly a half-century. City officials argue they are needed to mitigate traffic during peak hours. The report, which is planned to be completed by December 2026, will study the city's streets and the potential impacts of removing a portion of the reverse lanes, notably through the Melrose District. It's the second time the city has studied the question in four years and follows the second resident petition in three. After the last petition, in 2023, The Arizona Republic asked readers to let us know how they felt about the reverse lanes. In our non-scientific poll, two-thirds of readers said Phoenix should stop using reverse lanes. We want to see if readers' thoughts on the matter have changed since then. Let us know by answering the poll question below. While the debate continues over whether the reverse lanes are helpful, the issue as prompted another debate within The Republic newsroom and among its readers. Many longtime Phoenix residents use the colloquial term 'suicide lanes" to describe the reverse lanes on the Sevens. But traffic engineers do not use that term; they call them reversible lanes. Many people use "suicide lanes" to describe any center lane where cars can face each other head-on, such as on McDowell or Thomas roads. So, which is it? What should the lanes on the Sevens be called? We're asking readers to help settle this dispute. First, here's what we know about the lanes, their definitions and how they're meant to be used: This is an easy question to answer, as traffic engineers in Phoenix and around the country agree on their definition and description. They're center two-way left turn lanes, or TWLTL, to the engineers. Simply put, they're center turn lanes. The lanes are marked with solid yellow lines on the outside, and inner broken yellow lines. Drivers traveling in both directions along major streets like Indian School and McDowell roads or the Sevens can hop into the center lane to turn across traffic down a side street, or into a driveway or shops. Reverse, or reversible, lanes, like the ones along Seventh Street and Seventh Avenue, are converted center turn lanes. They're designed to expedite traffic flow during morning and afternoon rush hours, and only between McDowell Road and Dunlap Avenue on Seventh Street. On Seventh Avenue, the lane ends at Northern Avenue. What are flex lanes? New lanes introduced on Interstate 17 to alleviate traffic congestion On weekdays in Phoenix, those center turn lanes on the Sevens can be used as southbound through-traffic lanes for drivers heading into downtown from 6 to 9 a.m. They flip to northbound through-traffic lanes from 4 to 6 p.m. as drivers head away from downtown. During all other times of the day, the lanes can again be used as left-hand turn lanes, just like those on Thomas Road. This is the crux of the debate. 'Suicide lane' is not an official term that traffic engineers and transportation departments use. It's hardly found in official documents and government reports. The term is purely colloquial, and depending on who you're talking to, it can have slightly different meanings and uses. Here in Phoenix, many use it interchangeably with reverse lanes to denote the safety concerns and confusion associated with the lanes. Elsewhere, 'suicide lane' is the term used to describe all center turn lanes, not just those used for reverse lanes. A study on U-turns and intersections that the North Carolina Department of Transportation commissioned noted that some people described the two-way left turn lane as a 'suicide' lane. According to Wikipedia, the term has historically been used to describe the center left turn lane, as well as center passing lanes that are sometimes found along highways. Here's where you, the reader, can weigh in and help settle — or fuel — the debate. What do you call Phoenix's reverse travel lanes? Cast your vote in the poll below. Shawn Raymundo covers Phoenix and Scottsdale. Reach him at sraymundo@ or follow him on X @ShawnzyTsunami. This article originally appeared on Arizona Republic: 'Suicide' or 'reverse' lane? What to call center lanes on the Sevens?
